Eliminating Misandry One Woman at a Time

There’s an excellent opinion piece by the Hawaiian Libertarian here, where he proposes a way in which each of us can change the attitudes of the women in our own lives. Do this, and we then start creating a climate that is then ready to hear and deal justly with the issues that are of importance to us.

12 Responses to “Eliminating Misandry One Woman at a Time”

Many of the bloggers who call themselves MRA are budding writers with a burning message in their hearts. Every social movement in the last few centuries has swept aside the values of the day on the back of stirring, effective writers who communicated in no uncertain terms a wrong that needed to be righted (many of whom were jailed by the governments of their day for being so scandalous!).

These guys (and some women) are not just frustrated souls pissing in the wind. They’re the beginnings of a movement that needs their energy and skills to propagate into the wider community. There are already some awesomely capable writers beginning to emerge.

They do it for nothing, with no or little hope of reward. Comments from readers are the only way they get any recognition that what they are doing is worthwhile.

If you read these writers and like what they say, let them know. It brightens up their day, and lets them know what’s pressing people’s buttons. They deserve it.

You’re absolutely right Rob! Thanks so much for your kind comments. It certainly does brighten ones day to realize that somebody, somewhere read something you took the time to ruminate on and than write about.

When I tell women about what the ex and the family court [not to mention child support] has done to my children and me, the women go thought the following stages:
1. First comes shock and denial. I have a few simple facts which prevent denial or misunderstanding.
2. Then comes wonder that someone would do that to another person and to children.
3. Then I elborate and point out the role the Family Court played in things. At this point I can see in their eyes that some of their beliefs have been rocked and they tend to not know what to say.
4. After that I point out that my case is not as unusual as they might think. At that point I can see in their eyes and in subsequent conversations, that any ideas they had about women being disadvantaged have been placed into the context of reality.
5. From that point on if they have any such thoughts they don’t voice them in ear shot of me. Every now and then I may mention some statistic that gives them more food for thought.

One thing I do and what I recommend you do is challenge any situation where Dad is not part of the picture. In these circumstances I don’t shy away from inquiring or questioning that situation.

In other words – I encourage you to begin to react to the NZ accepted norm that Dad is not around and it is perfectly acceptable. Be polite about it – but show some concern that the biological father doesn’t seem to be involved.

Guys such as yourself who bear the battle-scars are far more convincing than rational argument alone. I think you make an excellent point in suggesting that we’re not out to disadvantage women, but to put their concerns in perspective.

This is why, for your comments Rob, and without disrespect to what you Stephen and Hawaiin Libertarian are focusing to achieve, shudder at when considering your actions in response.

I know this only sets to repeat my argument but it feels like you are walking away from the ambulance saying that until women recognise what we are saying and show us respect, we will not seek to repair the problem – and then – the repair belongs to you because you will have to respect and recognise the problem.

We have a role in this to play as well, and if we all walk away on masse from the instiution of our protection – marriage – as if it should be the vessel of our scorn – we burn our hoouse.

I keep quite a large garden. Over time I’ve learned that the more you think about how it thrives, the less physical work you need to put in. Give those plants the right environment, and they take care of themselves. They even seed themselves and choose the right time of year to sprout. Labour isn’t the same as result.

Sticking with the garden analogy, I could lay seed every week of the year, and eventually they would sprout and come to a good crop. I might be sowing for months at a time before any good came of it, and I would have wasted a lot of seed and labour, but in the end I would be successful.
I would be wrong to conclude though that my persistence brought me my crop. Planting in the right season did that – persistence brought me knowledge of when that right season was.

I believe your attempts at gaining legal recourse are the equivalent of sowing in winter, in barren ground. Eventually you, or someone else, will have a victory – but it won’t be because you persisted. It will be because others tilled the soil to make it more fertile, and the season changed.

The soil in this metaphor is our culture. Changing culture is not something done by brute force – one needs to study it, learn what is effective in changing it, then apply what has been learned to the aims that one has set oneself.

So it’s to the culture I address myself.

For all that, I’m glad some of us, like yourself, are slogging away at the legal end of the problem. When you win, the rest of us will know that the culture, and the season, has changed.

I have also challenged the marriage strike in worry that many young men will miss out on something worthwhile. But now I see that it is a stand just as protesting. It is just another form.

I don’t have to stick up for anyone here but you do need to look to see what others ARE doing instead of what they are not doing. IMO

It sounds to me that Stephen’s day is done in NZ and fair enough. He has been at it for decades yet he is still willing to be a part of this site and write about what is going on. Plus he does other things if you look around. Rob IS doing something about so it is a bit hard to say he is stepping back and not getting involved in the solution.

If JimB couldn’t get people through this site to go to the streets, what hope do you have? Is there something different that you are offering? (not wanting to come across mean here, just practical)

Why don’t you plan to get a crowd and go and get a crowd. It may take you a year but it will be worth it. Look to what others like Destiny Church and Family First do to get crowds. And maybe copy them.

How many people do you already have and can they direct you to others? Think outside the square.

Julie – you wanted me to speak at your event but did not follow it through when you recognised that the bottom denominator of this argument questions the freedom from discrimination as an unlawful practice of homosexuality. I’ve got a crowd. It’s bigger than any you have seen. My difficulty is that I am being left to marshall that crowd where my job doesn’t belong to its end in NZ. I want to go to the fight by leaving NZ not laving NZ to run away fromt he fight. Don’t worry about my crowd Julie, its already listening attentively. You should pray that I don’t lose control of it – as then we have chaos.

Rob, I read your metaphor after writing mine. I comprehend what you are saying. I too have run a garden although its maturity was left to be absorbed and organised by others because there is no point in running a garden if you cannot afford the time. I apply my metaphor to Stephen on DNA, as consistent to this reply.

I hear what you reply. I respect it. I tell you that constantly and until you figure out how that factors into and agaisnt what I tell you in reply, we are not going very far. You think I am arguing with you on the principle of challenge. I am not. I am saying you are taking the wrong approach to a very serious problem that is well and truly mature.

The battle lines have been drawn and are exposed. The Violence Intervention Programme is a programme to interfere with violence. It will happen. It is happening now.

And you still disagree with the view of those who hold the authority of what constituutes violence as if there weed killer will never destroy your garden.

I did want you to speak at the meeting but I realised it was a far way for you to come from Wellington. There is another guy down there that I thought would be worthwhile also but again it is a long way for just one night.

Thank-you for being prepared to speak. It was lucky that I got Jim Bagnall. And Paul C also. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. I think the law you speak of is important. Fathers ARE important.

I understand what you go against and I forgot about your trip. I am sure you would have a crowd.

When I tell men about what has happened to my children and I, they give one of 2 responses.
If they are recent immigrants from a non-western country they are shocked. They didn’t realise such things go on everyday in democratic western countries.
If they are Kiwi males they are often not surprised. They think it is terrible but they are not surprised.
I think this says volumes about NZ society in general, about many of NZs women and the Family court in particular.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.